strike on iraq
- Thread starter ElCubano
- Start date
I am stunned at what I read here. I read Dotslash practically screaming to go to war with Iraq. I read traderfut2000 saying how he "loves" the US but seemingly thinks every citizen of the US is a "brainwashed" "asshole" or worse. Candle has transformed himself into I don't know what. Disgruntled American? Certainly his change of heart is a very valuable lesson, however. If someone can do a 180 degree turnaround in their thinking, then what does this mean to the world in general when considering actions that cannot be undone? It is easy to change your mind, but not so easy to un-do a nuclear exchange.
I read partisan political editorials copied from every imaginable source. I see someone write something that was obviously meant to be taken as sarcasm, and get responses as if what they said was what they meant. Imagine how this could play out in a critical situation involving a guy with his finger on a nuclear trigger. This is a scenario that has been played out in books and movies. You read or watch these fictional possibilities, and think; well, it's just pretend. But there are no perfect safeguards, and no one can anticipate every possible scenario.
My point is that there is so much emotion here that it seems that people are just looking for excuses to make this a black and white issue. And it is anything but. This is an issue that is so complex, with so many variable factors to consider, and such horrific potential consequences, that it is really beyond comprehension.
I hope that the people that are in charge can be less passionate and more objective than the majority of the contributors to this thread. I include myself. I know I have made statements that were based more on emotion than total logic. It is unavoidable. This is part of the reason that I believe, as I have stated, that the only solution is to exhaust every possible path to peace. I brought up Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It still seems like a good comparison. We were actually in a more imminent danger, with PROOF that was presented to the UN (and the world), but somehow Kennedy prevailed keeping his sole objective of preventing an armed conflict. It worked, and he would have had a lot more support then to use force than today's administration does. Yet restraint was the smart play and it save the world...literally. I know most of the readers here are too young to remember, but I can tell you what I will never forget. I was in a classroom one day, and the teacher (it was a Health class) actually said that we could talk about anything we wanted that day, because we would all be dead tomorrow. (Fucked up teacher, yes, but still...)
Like us, the people in charge on both sides of the issue, and on both sides of the potential "line in the sand" are just human. And yet they can make emotionally driven decisions that can and will affect the future of the planet. For better or worse.
This situation is one that can literally bring about the end of the world. I don't think that those clamoring for war realize the enormity of the danger. The reality of it. Maybe it is a trait of the Nintendo generation.
I don't think that those who say we are just outright wrong to be concerned with Iraq's ability to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction are realistic.
What is the difference if we are right or wrong if it leads to a nuclear war?
I see the word "pacifist" used in this thread. I see the concept of "isolationism" brought up. So much rhetoric. But so little true objectivity. You will find very few pacifists with guns to their heads. And "isolationism" is an obsolete concept.
Let's assume that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden truly are creations of the US. Well what difference does it make in the end?There are those that say it is about oil. There are those that say it is about political diversion. There are so many arguments on both sides. But really, what does it matter? We are in a mess now, and even if it could be proven it was a mess we ourselves created makes it no less a mess.
I personally cannot buy the argument to just go in and wipe out Iraq. Nor can I accept the argument that we have to accept the consequences of our past mistakes (leadership, oil, CIA, politics, etc.) and live with the stink of our dirty laundry. It stinks way too much to live with.
I worked in the State Department in lieu of serving in the army (big mistake). I worked alongside CIA guys. I certainly did not know what motivated them, or even what their true objectives were. But I did know enough to realize that even then, when the world was a simpler place and our "enemies" better defined, that the public, and the armed forces too, for that matter, only knew what the intelligence community intended for them to know.
So whatever we read, whatever we see on television or hear on the radio is only what gets through. We are just not informed.
But we can take a lot into consideration just listening to a guy like Traderfut2000 to know how hostile the world can be in it's outlook towards the US. If this guy, who claims to be a man of peace and tolerant of all peoples and all religions and nationalities; and we assume him to be "moderate" in terms of the arab world, then we are indeed in a very very bad place and time.
God help us. (if He exists of course, which is a whole different issue
)
I read partisan political editorials copied from every imaginable source. I see someone write something that was obviously meant to be taken as sarcasm, and get responses as if what they said was what they meant. Imagine how this could play out in a critical situation involving a guy with his finger on a nuclear trigger. This is a scenario that has been played out in books and movies. You read or watch these fictional possibilities, and think; well, it's just pretend. But there are no perfect safeguards, and no one can anticipate every possible scenario.
My point is that there is so much emotion here that it seems that people are just looking for excuses to make this a black and white issue. And it is anything but. This is an issue that is so complex, with so many variable factors to consider, and such horrific potential consequences, that it is really beyond comprehension.
I hope that the people that are in charge can be less passionate and more objective than the majority of the contributors to this thread. I include myself. I know I have made statements that were based more on emotion than total logic. It is unavoidable. This is part of the reason that I believe, as I have stated, that the only solution is to exhaust every possible path to peace. I brought up Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It still seems like a good comparison. We were actually in a more imminent danger, with PROOF that was presented to the UN (and the world), but somehow Kennedy prevailed keeping his sole objective of preventing an armed conflict. It worked, and he would have had a lot more support then to use force than today's administration does. Yet restraint was the smart play and it save the world...literally. I know most of the readers here are too young to remember, but I can tell you what I will never forget. I was in a classroom one day, and the teacher (it was a Health class) actually said that we could talk about anything we wanted that day, because we would all be dead tomorrow. (Fucked up teacher, yes, but still...)
Like us, the people in charge on both sides of the issue, and on both sides of the potential "line in the sand" are just human. And yet they can make emotionally driven decisions that can and will affect the future of the planet. For better or worse.
This situation is one that can literally bring about the end of the world. I don't think that those clamoring for war realize the enormity of the danger. The reality of it. Maybe it is a trait of the Nintendo generation.
I don't think that those who say we are just outright wrong to be concerned with Iraq's ability to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction are realistic.
What is the difference if we are right or wrong if it leads to a nuclear war?
I see the word "pacifist" used in this thread. I see the concept of "isolationism" brought up. So much rhetoric. But so little true objectivity. You will find very few pacifists with guns to their heads. And "isolationism" is an obsolete concept.
Let's assume that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden truly are creations of the US. Well what difference does it make in the end?There are those that say it is about oil. There are those that say it is about political diversion. There are so many arguments on both sides. But really, what does it matter? We are in a mess now, and even if it could be proven it was a mess we ourselves created makes it no less a mess.
I personally cannot buy the argument to just go in and wipe out Iraq. Nor can I accept the argument that we have to accept the consequences of our past mistakes (leadership, oil, CIA, politics, etc.) and live with the stink of our dirty laundry. It stinks way too much to live with.
I worked in the State Department in lieu of serving in the army (big mistake). I worked alongside CIA guys. I certainly did not know what motivated them, or even what their true objectives were. But I did know enough to realize that even then, when the world was a simpler place and our "enemies" better defined, that the public, and the armed forces too, for that matter, only knew what the intelligence community intended for them to know.
So whatever we read, whatever we see on television or hear on the radio is only what gets through. We are just not informed.
But we can take a lot into consideration just listening to a guy like Traderfut2000 to know how hostile the world can be in it's outlook towards the US. If this guy, who claims to be a man of peace and tolerant of all peoples and all religions and nationalities; and we assume him to be "moderate" in terms of the arab world, then we are indeed in a very very bad place and time.
God help us. (if He exists of course, which is a whole different issue
)Good points RS7.
Believe it or not, I was very liberal when I was in college. Once I left college, I slowly began to realize the true extent of the liberal programming I had received. I was taught that white males are evil, republicans are evil, the military is evil, and capitalism is evil. Well, I have since learned what is evil and what isn't, and my emotion and conservatism flows from that.
Believe it or not, I was very liberal when I was in college. Once I left college, I slowly began to realize the true extent of the liberal programming I had received. I was taught that white males are evil, republicans are evil, the military is evil, and capitalism is evil. Well, I have since learned what is evil and what isn't, and my emotion and conservatism flows from that.
PS to the last post....
Regarding the misinterpretation of meaning.....as in what was meant to be taken as sarcastic or literal. And the dangers of miscommunication when playing with very very loud and big toys.
There was a movie some of you may have seen, but probably too old a movie for most.
It was called "The Bedford Incident".
There were two warships in a confrontation during the cold war. Each with nuclear missiles. One American and one Soviet.
The American commander is on the bridge talking with his XO and other officers. So the commader is talking command stuff, and in the converstation, he says to someone on the bridge, "well if he (the enemy) fires one (missile) than I will fire one". So having said that in that context, the schmuck XO hears over the noise just the last two words...."fire one". So he passes on the order: "Fire One!"
So guess what happened.
Regarding the misinterpretation of meaning.....as in what was meant to be taken as sarcastic or literal. And the dangers of miscommunication when playing with very very loud and big toys.
There was a movie some of you may have seen, but probably too old a movie for most.
It was called "The Bedford Incident".
There were two warships in a confrontation during the cold war. Each with nuclear missiles. One American and one Soviet.
The American commander is on the bridge talking with his XO and other officers. So the commader is talking command stuff, and in the converstation, he says to someone on the bridge, "well if he (the enemy) fires one (missile) than I will fire one". So having said that in that context, the schmuck XO hears over the noise just the last two words...."fire one". So he passes on the order: "Fire One!"
So guess what happened.
Good post rs7.
War should be the last option I agree. Unfortunately we may be near the last option. Ideally Iraq would not only allow inspectors in but help them in their inspection regime. As far as I understand the situation, the only way they can be effective is if they are helped by the targeted country. The WOMD could then be destroyed and we would have no reason to go to war.
It just isn't going to happen that way, I'm afraid to say. So next best is world support in going into Iraq (UN). If that doesn't happen, then at least a multi-country coalition going into Iraq with weak UN support. Bush's last speech made it sound like at least a multi-country coalition was in the works. Hopefully more countries will come along for the ride but in all likelihood it may be a multi-country coalition instead of a large multi-country coalition.
War should be the last option I agree. Unfortunately we may be near the last option. Ideally Iraq would not only allow inspectors in but help them in their inspection regime. As far as I understand the situation, the only way they can be effective is if they are helped by the targeted country. The WOMD could then be destroyed and we would have no reason to go to war.
It just isn't going to happen that way, I'm afraid to say. So next best is world support in going into Iraq (UN). If that doesn't happen, then at least a multi-country coalition going into Iraq with weak UN support. Bush's last speech made it sound like at least a multi-country coalition was in the works. Hopefully more countries will come along for the ride but in all likelihood it may be a multi-country coalition instead of a large multi-country coalition.
Dot, I understand exactly....but my point was that you have to at some point realize that it isn't black and white. Of course the "liberal" standby's are as absurd as any. White men, republicans, military, yeah, all the usual suspects. But I don''t know when you went to college, but for sure that was the perception during the vietnam era. So I was thinking the same things then. Later I realized that, hey, I was white, I occasionally voted for republicans and I had friends in the military. Yet I avoided the draft at all costs. Ended up going to prison for a bit. But I was too old at the time to really want to fight, so they didn't want me any more than I wanted them. But the government is tough. They offered me a deal I couldn't resist.
Anyway, they say youth has no soul if they are not "liberal" and as we mature we have no brains if we don't become more coservative. Well, maybe there is some truth to that. I am proud that I encouraged my son to join the Navy. And I beilive in taxing our dollars for defense (but not necessarily guns and other obsolete weapons). The world changed. OUr defenses must change to keep pace.
But then later in life, it seems that the brains begin to comprehend the idealism of the young. Take a look at our supreme court justices. You will be surprised to see the oldest most tenured justices actually became more liberal in their later years. Why do you think this is? Second childhood? senility? Well read Wm. O Douglas, for example or Felix Frankfurter, or Oliver Wendell Holmes, or John Marshall. You will see how they "mellow with age". Or how about Earl Warren....here was a right wing appointee who eventually had the KKK having "Impeach Earl Warren Ralleys". Hey, like I said in the last post, we can all change our minds. We just can't change the results of a nuclear exchange.
Peace;
Rs7Revisionist or just hopeful? Kennedy was prepared to execute the plan, Russia blinked. Don't think for one minute that we were not in the same hairy position that we now sit in. The real question now is, will Sadamn blink and can YOU handle it if he doesn't?
For some reason folks don't seem to understand that there is no war if Sadamn allows some inspectors to come in and look around to verify that he is telling the truth. Continual posturing to the point of "Sadamn is crazy" is not an acceptable deterrent to what is approaching. To you I would ask this also:
If Sadamn were found to have the weapons and intention to do harm and it is proven, wouldn't he be the same crazy person that you claim he is now? Wouldn't he then still be in a posture to do exactly what we fear he MIGHT do now? Wouldn't there be the same peoples killed on both sides that you fear about to be killed now? Or is the real factor here that people need to see traggedy happening before they act to stop more?
It was intercepted 155 miles from the Iraqi border.
Excerpt from: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/28/145441
"Dr. Khidir Hamza, who ran Saddam's nuclear program before he defected to the U.S. in 1994, said earlier this year that the Iraqi dictator was working on a Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapon and that he had all the components necessary except for enriched uranium."
The worst case scenario's of what can happen as a result of Iraqi invasion are grossly exageratted, even more than they were before the first gulf war. Remember the "mother of all battles" rehetoric, and america would be shipping tens of thousands of body bags, etc., etc. ? Sadam had a significant conventioal force that he doesn't have now, and China was a lot more hard line and hostile than now. Russia and France are against an attack on purely economic grounds because they have deals with Sadam. Also, we are already at war with middle eastern terrorists, risking their anger is completely besides the point. The worst scenario that I see coming out of this is that we invade and then don't find any weapons. That is an acceptable risk to me.
I don't think it could be summed up much cleaner. I do remember the "mother of all battles" crap. This was supposed to be such a standoff and to hear it told, we couldn't manufacture enough body bags for all the dead Americans that were to come from the encounter. Weren't they supposed to have one of the best armies over there?
I am not a military genius, but I can think of several scenarios that would make this effective and quick. Of course there would be a whole lot of squirming and all by those afraid of it all. But if I could fathom a plan, I am sure the trained professionals HAVE ALREADY DONE SO! I second your analysis of "acceptable risk!"